North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

[mlmpetert]

Video of CFAs in Springfield, Falls Church and Crystal City. AND theres a pretty hot chick right after the 3 minute mark.

Checking Out Chick-fil-A 'Appreciation Day' | MRCTV

Yesterday’s “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” was huge across the country. MRCTV’s Dan Joseph and crew traveled to several Chick-fil-A locations around the DC area to interview some of the many Americans who came to support traditional marriage and freedom of speech.

“It’s a shame we can’t say what we think these days,” protested one woman. Another added, “We’re protesting, you know, the media and everybody trying to say it’s hate. I don’t hate anybody.” Joseph even found a huge line in Springfield, Virginia at 2 pm – hardly the lunch rush:

Read more: MRCTV Films at Chick-fil-A: Crowds In Favor of Free Speech, Against Media 'Hate' Labels | NewsBusters.org

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

This is really becoming so silly, its insane to see how this country is so media driven. Its really amazing.

Its rare we get to hear what companies support outside the business world unless its a charitable organization, I think lessen learned from Oreo's maker and Chickfila is to keep quiet. I dont mind when people or corporation use their first admendant right, even if I dont agree, but I sick of the god damn media and talking heads on cable and radio driving their extreme, hate filled rhetoric home.These people dont want to talk about the legit issue, they just want to throw punches. We get suckered into it and Chickfila in the end gets paid.

At first i thought CFA might lose Chick Fil A Bowl, but after the overwhelming support yesterday i dont see it happening. So I think from a business perspective all of this has been very good for Oreo and CFA.

Could not agree more about the media.

But i dont think this issue is going away anytime soon. Its probably gonna get worse. The Democratic Party just tenitvely voted to endorse same sex marriage:

Democrats Back Gay Marriage for Party Platform - WSJ.com

This was before Chick Fil A Day so who knows if theyll backpeddel at all?

But I dont think federally supporting gay marriage does anything or could do anything in the next 20 or so years. Heck, the Civil Rights Act didnt even force states to allow interacial marriages. No chance we see an admendment for gay marraige anytime soon. Probably a decent chance at a Supreme Court ruling within 20 years, although im sure a ruling would be complicated.

Meanwhile the Republicans have boxed themselves in a corner, not for being anti gay marriage, but by being so positive traditional marriage. The answer should have always been that they personally think marriage is between 1 man and 1 women; however, that they believe the government has no business being in our bedrooms or being part of something that is ultimately a commitment between 2 people and God.

That gets the independent vote and retains nearly all of the base. Instead Republicans continue to preach small government while doing the opposite.

[Alvin Walton]

LMAO!

Watch this vid.
Vante exec makes video of himself harrasing a Chic Fil A employee.
His boss sees it and fires him.
What an idiot!

Vante CFO Bullies Chick-Fil-A Worker, Then Promptly Gets Fired For It - Business Insider

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

LMAO!

Watch this vid.
Vante exec makes video of himself harrasing a Chic Fil A employee.
His boss sees it and fires him.
What an idiot!

Vante CFO Bullies Chick-Fil-A Worker, Then Promptly Gets Fired For It - Business Insider

jeez, people are just effing morons. thats right go take it out on a cashier, wow. this guy was in a leadership position. Sell all of your stock in Vante immediately

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

LMAO!

Watch this vid.
Vante exec makes video of himself harrasing a Chic Fil A employee.
His boss sees it and fires him.
What an idiot!

Vante CFO Bullies Chick-Fil-A Worker, Then Promptly Gets Fired For It - Business Insider

First class douche bag. It's one thing if you want to stand on the side and protest, but berating middle class workers who are trying to make a living isn't the way to go. They don't make company policy, they don't donate the money to the hate groups. Common man!!

Glad he got fired. I would say that backfired big time on him.

[mlmpetert]

God's Will?

Chick-fil-A spokesman dies amid furor over same-sex marriage | Nation/world Business | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

[mlmpetert]

Good read:

I Support Justin Durant And Chick-Fil-A « CBS Detroit

Let me take this opportunity to applaud Lions linebacker Justin Durant. First of all, he made me laugh. Someone on Durant’s Twitter asked him if he would stop eating at Chick-Fil-A if the owner supported slavery. He tweeted back: “Chicken too tasty.” Good joke, and excellent use of fighting hyperbole with humor.

[MTK]

What an a-hole

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

What an a-hole

Without a doubt!I will tell you though he wasn't even close to being as big an rear end as some customers have been for other reasons,if you have ever worked in the food business the public can be down right stupid.

[SmootSmack]

The cashier handled that very well. Much more composed than I would have been

[JoeRedskin]

I've said this before and I'll say it again - remove the term "marriage contract" from the government's dictionary. Instead, the only thing anyone can get from the govt. is a State sanctioned civil union performed by a government official and ending the authority of religious officers to provide the State's sanction to such conracts. Such a union would permit individuals to receive the benefits of the traditional marriage contract while ending the government's involvement in the right of various churches to define their own requirements for the marriage sacrament.

Believe it or not, the marriage contract was not originally a religious issue but an enforceable contract at law related to, but not the same thing as, the religious sacrament of "marriage". Back when women were essentially considered property and/or were unable to hold title, enter into contracts and had other similar restrictions on their existence as a legal entity, breaking off a marriage contract (i.e. terminating the contract on some basis other than fraud or other legally recognized basis for terminating a contract) had tangible legal damages. Whereas, the marriage sacrament actually encouraged people - man or woman - to break off an engagement if, upon reflection, they discovered that they could not live up to the sacrament's requirements (fidelity, love and honor, etc.). Such a termination, if believed by the priest/reverend, etc. to be authentic and the right course, carried no religious santion - even if legal penalties were incurred. i.e. It may have been illegal to break the contract, but it was not a sin to do so.

Eventually, in our civil society, as women began to be viewed differently under the law, they gained more individual rights under the marriage contract and, in fact, became a party to the contract in their own right [Originally, the woman's father, not the woman herself, was the contracting party - it's that women as chattel thing again - and it was he (or the woman's brothers) who was (were) entitled to the "benefit of the bargain" if the groom broke of the engagement].

B/c the evolution of marriage as a sacrament within religion developed in conjuction to its development as the legally binding contract, the concepts of marriage contract and the sacrament of marriage got intermingled to such a point that, now, religious officers (priests, reverends etc.) are actually officers of the State. When such individuals sign a marriage license, and in addition to completing the religious sacramental rite, these religious officers convey the rights and liabilities of a governmentally sanctioned marriage contract. Essentially, every religious officer is empowered by the State to act as an officer of the State similar to a Justice of the Peace. I believe this to be both wrong in principle and wrong as a violation of the Constitution's brilliantly insightful stricture requiring separation of Church and State

While the values of the sacrament, being timeless in their own way, have remained essentially the same, the marriage contract has evolved considerable since women were considered chattel.

I would suggest that, historically, the government is a party to such a contract b/c they are bound by law to give certain benefits to other parties to the contract and these benefits cannot exist without a duly authorized govt. official (be it a sanctioned church official or a Justice of the Peace) approving the contract. Obviously, the legal rights of the parties and, in fact the parties themselves (i.e. the woman individually rather than some other family member) have consistently been modified to recognize the changing legal principles governing our civil society. I see no legal road block to further modification of this form of contract such that is consistent with the Constitutional requirement of equal rights regardless of race, religion or gender.

"Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's, render unto God that which is God's." By the laws' of Ceaser, we are all entitled to enter into legally binding contracts which are not inherently illegal (i.e. a contract to kill someone). IMHO, the best and most efficient way to delineate the separation of Church and State on this issue is to use the appropriate, legally neutral language entering into such a contract for all individuals regardless of race, creed, or gender. Just like the coin bearing Ceasar's image, a contract legally binding two people to each other for the tangible, material requirements of pooling of resources, incurring and sharing long term expenses & benefits (both personal and legal), tax considerations and all other consequential legal remafications of such a contract should require only the tangible, material sanction of the State - not the intangible, spiritual sanction of God.

As to Chic-a-fil, my biggest issue is that everyone is entitled to their opinion -to me Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are pretty high on my list of "Yes. This is important." Chic-a-fil's choice to exercise those rights as they see fit should be respected. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a right to say it and legally act upon it.

To be clear, and in my opinion, God doesn't care with whom we sleep - just that we keep the two great commandments (Love God above all others and love they neighbor as thyself). That's my opinion and I to the extent my church feels differently, I will work to change that. At the same time, I also firmly believe each and everyone of us is entitled to speak their mind and state their opinions - no matter how offensive others find it. Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech are all equally important rights. Chic-a-fil wants to incorporate their religious beliefs into their business plan - fine. People wish to protest that decision, also fine. To me, it's all just confusing and distorting the underlying substantive issue.

Respecting and defining the Constitutional requiring the Separation of Church and State as it applies to the marriage contract would go a long way to furthering everyone's freedom of religion and freedom of speech on this issue. As such, rather than (IMHO) unconstitutionally granting the legal benefits of the marriage contract to some and not others based on their gender, do away with the legally confusing marriage contract and replace with civil unions for all. Then, let churches regulate the sacrament of marriage as they see fit.

The brilliant men behind the Constitution created an evolving document with timeless truths - separation of Church & State being one of them. In concert with that brilliant intention, it is time to evolve and to separate the "rite" of marriage from the "right" of marriage.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I've said this before and I'll say it again - remove the term "marriage contract" from the government's dictionary. Instead, the only thing anyone can get from the govt. is a State sanctioned civil union performed by a government official and ending the authority of religious officers to provide the State's sanction to such conracts. Such a union would permit individuals to receive the benefits of the traditional marriage contract while ending the government's involvement in the right of various churches to define their own requirements for the marriage sacrament.

JR, allow me to take you out for a beer the next time I'm in the area. I love you man. (no homo)


What he said is exactly what they should do in regards to marriage. Just so you know, I stood up and gave you a round of applause for that post.

Believe it or not, the marriage contract was not originally a religious issue but an enforceable contract at law related to, but not the same thing as, the religious sacrament of "marriage".

Don't tell religious people that.

[MTK]

I feel like in 10-15 years we'll look back and say wow, I can't believe gay marriage was actually a big deal.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I feel like in 10-15 years we'll look back and say wow, I can't gay marriage was actually a big deal.

yup, hopefully be saying as i share a phillip morris premo blend spliff

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

yup, hopefully be saying as i share a phillip morris premo blend spliff

lol could happen